Page 22 - Managing Change in Organizations
P. 22

Carnch01v3.qxd  3/30/07  4:08 PM  Page 5







                                                                                         The profile of ambition
                                    to bear on the question of how ambitious we can and should be when consider-
                                    ing proposals for change.
                                      Finally, with regard to problem 3, we will look at a range of individual, team and
                                    organizational issues relevant to any understanding of change management. Here
                                    we will look at change diagnosis, at leadership, at the change coping cycle model
                                    and much more. We will also seek to show how the various issues implicated by
                                    problems 1 and 2 form part of the context of people’s attitudes and how behaviour
                                    is formed in any given change setting. Ultimately our objective is to show what we
                                    understand of how to make change. We seek to go beyond the bounds of doubt
                                    that we often see when practitioners discuss major changes. Here we seek to focus
                                    on what we know and on what we can reasonably infer from experience. Much still
                                    remains uncertain and difficult to predict but our view is that we should build on
                                    what we know so we can make changes with greater confidence sustained by the
                                    thought that we can learn more from the experience of doing so.



                                    The profile of ambition

                                    How then can business leaders conceive ambitious strategic change? What does
                                    ambition mean in this context? Clearly competitiveness is key, just as clearly
                                    understanding the assets on which competitiveness can be based is also impor-
                                    tant. But we must also beware naive assumptions. As Hampden-Turner (1996)
                                    demonstrates, a focus on a single factor can bring immediate success and longer-
                                    term failure. But Kay (1993) probably lays the most appropriate foundation. For
                                    him the differentiator on which market power is based is known as ‘distinctive
                                    capability’. In turn this is based on the following:
                                    ■ Reputation: essentially the market perception of product/service offerings in
                                      terms of tangible attributes – linked to brands.
                                    ■ Architecture: the relationship of resources including knowledge and flexibility –
                                      i.e. internal, external and networks – which the firm can bring to bear.
                                    ■ Innovation: the capacity to change.

                                    For distinctive capability to be a source of competitive advantage, however, it
                                    must be sustainable. Here the truth is that nothing is ultimately sustainable as the
                                    fortunes over time of many a major corporate demonstrate all too clearly. Scale
                                    and market share help but Kay (1993) infers that the management of public policy
                                    might be just as important (e.g. Microsoft). All of this points to the need to
                                    understand how to create and maintain value-added as the foundation of corpo-
                                    rate success, the argument as presented by Kay (1993).
                                      Value-based management is a watchword of current management. It means dif-
                                    ferent things to different observers. For some it is about economic value added,
                                    shareholder value and the like. For others the key is social capital (Fukuyama,
                                    1995). Taking this latter view, others see value-based management as more than
                                    simply a matter of value-added. Mission, purposes and strategy require or imply a
                                    statement of corporate values. Managing a business as if values matter then attracts
                                    our attention. Herein lies the argument about alignment. Success will come to those
                                    whose strategic architecture aligns vision, mission, values, strategy, structure, etc.

                                                                                                          5
   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27